Richard lll : The King in the Carpark C4 Monday

Comments

But how can the discovery of his skeleton lead to a 'totally different thinking on his personality'?

It is bit like some of the wild assumptions that you hear on Time Team sometimes

I suspect because of the association of his "hunched back" with evil doing which has generally been made over the years by various propaganda merchants.
As he didn't have a hump, wasn't a hunchback, didn't have a withered arm and all the other images people have come to associate with Richard III perhaps there will also be another re-examination of the historical accuracy of the rest of the things he's been accused of or associated with?

I suspect because of the association of his "hunched back" with evil doing which has generally been made over the years by various propaganda merchants.
As he didn't have a hump, wasn't a hunchback, didn't have a withered arm and all the other images people have come to associate with Richard III perhaps there will also be another re-examination of the historical accuracy of the rest of the things he's been accused of or associated with?

I read a book years ago about him which said he wasn't an evil man with a grotesquely twisted back. I can't see how the discovery of his skeleton will change things. Historians will continue to disagree .

It'd be interesting to see what sort of funeral service is given, and I wonder what the headlines will be in the papers tonight and tomorrow. If I were writing the puns, it'd be "A hearse, a hearse! My kingdom for a hearse!"

But how can the discovery of his skeleton lead to a 'totally different thinking on his personality'?

It is bit like some of the wild assumptions that you hear on Time Team sometimes

The Richard III Society have been going on about this for years. Shakespeare's Richard the Third was written as Tudor propaganda, as Richard - a Plantagenet king - was defeated by Elizabeth I's grandfather Henry VII, who was a Tudor. Therefore Richard had to be the hunchbacked, nephew murdering villain in order to satisfy Tudor sensiblities.

How is it an own goal?
There's been lots of programmes where they keep viewers hanging on for 55 minutes and "they find nothin!"
This could have been one of them, but if it isn't, so what?
There'll be more, you can count on it.

But I made the point that the words "The hunt for" wasn't in the title, just the write-up in a telly mag.

If you read my post properly, you'd see that I made no definitive judgement on this one. So that was your "own goal.".

Time Team have had that kind of thing, but this was pretty definite in that they were going to find something, as it was the site of the old long demolished Greyfriars Priory and the finding of Richard's skeleton was a bonus.

The words 'The Hunt For....' were in the title every time the trailer's been shown. It's a catch-all title anyway, as it's about the excavation and it would have stood if it had been Richard or not, so yes, it is a bit of an own goal on your part.

I'm looking forward to this tonight - they must be thrilled to bits with their find!
I'm ashamed to say I know little about Richard III, other than what may now seem to be popularised myths about him - if anyone can recommend a good read or documentary on him, I'd be very grateful.

It'd be interesting to see what sort of funeral service is given, and I wonder what the headlines will be in the papers tonight and tomorrow. If I were writing the puns, it'd be "A hearse, a hearse! My kingdom for a hearse!"

Not for the funeral itself, but I hope there might be some point after the funeral for Jim Howick in character to perform Richard III Song live in Leicester.

The Richard III Society have been going on about this for years. Shakespeare's Richard the Third was written as Tudor propaganda, as Richard - a Plantagenet king - was defeated by Elizabeth I's grandfather Henry VII, who was a Tudor. Therefore Richard had to be the hunchbacked, nephew murdering villain in order to satisfy Tudor sensiblities.

Time Team have had that kind of thing, but this was pretty definite in that they were going to find something, as it was the site of the old long demolished Greyfriars Priory and the finding of Richard's skeleton was a bonus.

The words 'The Hunt For....' were in the title every time the trailer's been shown. It's a catch-all title anyway, as it's about the excavation and it would have stood if it had been Richard or not, so yes, it is a bit of an own goal on your part.

Sorry, for what it's worth it isn't an own goal, as I was pointing out the number of programmes where they don't find anything. So this is an exception that proves the rule. At the time I started the thread, I'd no idea one way or another.

The early revelation means that many like me won't bother to watch it. If you've seen one car park and one pile o' bones, then you've seen 'em all. There'll be as much interest for me, as most episodes of Time Team.

I read a book years ago about him which said he wasn't an evil man with a grotesquely twisted back. I can't see how the discovery of his skeleton will change things. Historians will continue to disagree .

Yes they'll disagree over whether or not he was responsible for the murder of the two sons of Edward IV but it's going to be pretty hard to disagree when there's skeletal evidence in front of them that he didn't have a hump or a hunchback.

I suspect because of the association of his "hunched back" with evil doing which has generally been made over the years by various propaganda merchants.
As he didn't have a hump, wasn't a hunchback, didn't have a withered arm and all the other images people have come to associate with Richard III perhaps there will also be another re-examination of the historical accuracy of the rest of the things he's been accused of or associated with?

I suppose that too many people, including quite learned ones, forget that Shakespeare just wrote plays, which were loosely based on historic events. They are no better a way of learning history than watching the Mel Gibson's Braveheart.

Yes they'll disagree over whether or not he was responsible for the murder of the two sons of Edward IV but it's going to be pretty hard to disagree when there's skeletal evidence in front of them that he didn't have a hump or a hunchback.

I thought they said he'd got quite pronounced scoliosis. Wouldn't that make him look like he'd got a hump?

I thought they said he'd got quite pronounced scoliosis. Wouldn't that make him look like he'd got a hump?

Apparently not no, all that it would have done would make one of his shoulders slightly higher than the other. Medical experts say it would have been hardly noticeable at all but very definitely not a hump, a hunch or any other kind of highly visible deformity as portrayed by the Tudor propagandists.

Apparently not no, all that it would have done would make one of his shoulders slightly higher than the other. Medical experts say it would have been hardly noticeable at all but very definitely not a hump, a hunch or any other kind of highly visible deformity as portrayed by the Tudor propagandists.

Oh very interesting. The Daily Mail website said his curved spine 'proved the myth'. That'll teach me to read the Daily Mail.

I'm looking forward to this tonight - they must be thrilled to bits with their find!
I'm ashamed to say I know little about Richard III, other than what may now seem to be popularised myths about him - if anyone can recommend a good read or documentary on him, I'd be very grateful.

Oh boy, the choice is huge. I can recommend Sharon Penman's "The Sun in Splendour" - it is a historical novel based on the events surrounding Richard and Edward IV - absolutely engrossing.

The first book I ever read on the story was Elizabeth Jenkins' "The Princes in the Tower". She says Richard, in all probability, had a hand in his nephews' demise but that there was no other option open to him if he hoped to survive. It is a very good read.